I'm saying they write it in a biased fashion.
They're not exactly going to incriminate themselves for doing something wrong, are they?

So while events themselves might be written down as they happened, the causes and whose fault it was is, more often than not, not as clear cut as represented to be.

Look at the Crusades.
Officially, they were caused by divine intervention, the church saying God wanted to reclaim his holy land.
In reality, it was a political stunt, an excuse to exterminate other races of people so that the society associated with the Christian church would remain in power.

A lot of that stuff happened, and is still happening, in Britain.

Have you ever seen In The Name of the Father?
I recommend you do.
Go take a look at how the powerful morph who's really to blame in situations to suit themselves.

As usual, typical left-wing arguments. No logic. No sense. No rationality. Just; 'have compassion', 'exploitation' and 'everyone should have this or that'.

The First World governments colonised and ?developed? the Third World, transplanting capitalism into those countries, thereby destroying the once successful economic processes that were already in place (like subsistence agriculture or foraging).

So you define subsistence agriculture as economic success? Therefore by your definition if we are all scrounging around like poor peasants working to barely survive that is 'economic success'.

If their cash crops fail on the market, those countries suffer dearly. They already have debts in ?setting up? capitalism, so market changes affect them more.

The reason their crops fail on the market is because of the generous subsidies handed out to farmers in first world countries. This makes their production costs much cheaper and hence they can flood the market with their produce, effectively monopolising the industry.

And third world debt comes from massive borrowing by Governments.

'Capitalism' is just a system whereby two parties trade to the benefit of both. It works very well and is the fastest way to build wealth. Unfortunately it doesn't work properly when Governments, spurred on by left whingers like yourself, decide to intervene and take away people's wealth thus distorting the process.

If there was a natural disaster that destroyed your business, for example, you would have that subsidised by insurance. That is why we pay premiums. If there was a trend on these claims, premiums for EVERYONE would go up. It?s the same with the drought and the farmers. We all pay tax, and now that a natural disaster has affected farmers, tax money is helping them through it. Those who are not farmers are given government rebates on water wise equipment. So those who need it more, get more subsidises. Isn?t that fair?

First of all, your analogy is wrong. Tax is not the same as insurance premiums. I have a choice whether or not to pay insurance, I have no choice whether to pay tax. Are you saying everyone should be forced to pay insurance for people other than themselves?

I'm sure farmers have the capability of setting up their own fund for crises like these and they have even raised a lot of charity money to help them.

It is an involuntary because there are so many selfish people out there who don?t have enough humanity to give a little.

So those people who want to keep the money they've earned are 'inhumane', according to you.

What the ALP is trying to do is emphasise the idea that the common man has a right to university. The common man SHOULD be able to go to university. Not just if they can pay for it, or achieve amazingly high results.
It's people like you that squash the "common man" down and prevent them from growing.

Why not give everyone the 'right' to top-level jobs, too?

If any common man can just walk into a university and get a degree for free, then doesn't that cheapen education to a very low standard?

Hey, I?m still interested! Grizzy asked you how many languages you spoke, Gatherer. Will you answer him? I believe it was you who said ?please don't avoid the point that was made?. You racists always avoid the point (or the many points from looking over the last page) when it disproves your ignorant views.

As usual, typical left-wing arguments. No logic. No sense. No rationality. Just; 'have compassion', 'exploitation' and 'everyone should have this or that'.

Are you serious?! Read past the last page carefully. The Gatherer couldn?t logically prove ANY of his points!

So you define subsistence agriculture as economic success? Therefore by your definition if we are all scrounging around like poor peasants working to barely survive that is 'economic success'.

They were surviving better on subsistence agriculture, for crying out loud! If that is your definition, you obviously don?t know what subsistence farming is. Just because something doesn?t earn MONEY doesn?t mean it isn?t successful. They had the resources to survive. That?s a lot more successful than it is now.

And third world debt comes from massive borrowing by Governments.

The Third World has no other ?back up? if they have a bad harvest (often due to the fact that those crops don?t grow well in Third World climates), as they can no longer subsistence farm (doing it for themselves, isn?t that what you want?!). They need to borrow because otherwise they would die! The initial debt comes from governments colonising and forcing capitalism upon them. People do not change their mode of production in such a dramatic way unless it is forced upon them.

'Capitalism' is just a system whereby two parties trade to the benefit of both. It works very well and is the fastest way to build wealth. Unfortunately it doesn't work properly when Governments, spurred on by left whingers like yourself, decide to intervene and take away people's wealth thus distorting the process.

Capitalism is a system whereby two parties trade to profit THEMSELVES. That is what capitalism is about! Profit! It works very well in certain countries, it doesn?t work in the Third World! The only wealth that was ever made in the Third World, goes back to the First World. This is linked back to my above point.

First of all, your analogy is wrong. Tax is not the same as insurance premiums. I have a choice whether or not to pay insurance, I have no choice whether to pay tax. Are you saying everyone should be forced to pay insurance for people other than themselves?

Everyone generally pays insurance, but the point is not whether or not it is compulsory. The analogy was used to show how things are proportionally distributed to make things fair in society. Farmers have to pay tax too, and a very large proportion of that will go into city projects.

So those people who want to keep the money they've earned are 'inhumane', according to you.

People who earn a lot more than those who are in serious need are inhumane if they can?t give a tiny percentage of their wages, yes.

If any common man can just walk into a university and get a degree for free, then doesn't that cheapen education to a very low standard?

No, as you're missing the point of education. It is not purely a fiscal endevour, but can be looked at as a type of economy if that's what you want.

Instead of money, let's use the currency of "academic merit". Those who have worked hard enough to earn enough of this currency, can have a better range or options when choosing which degree and thus which career they wish to pursue.

They have worked harder than their brethren - and probably have a lot more innate skill and intellect making them well suited to higher level careers - and thus have earnt the opportunity to better themselves further. Strikes me as being rather the epitome of capitalistic thinking. You get out what you put in. Fair and above board.

In fact, it is this very process that'll ensure the "common man" can't just walk in off the street and become a doctor, it is a process which safeguards such occupations for those who have displayed enough skill and intelligence to cope with the demands of the occupation, and doubly have displayed a willingness to put in the effort such a job may demand.

If we begin slapping PRICE TAGS on degrees, we are allowing your analogy of the common man who may have had rich parents but done very little HIMSELF to earn any reward, to waltz on in and take a degree that would of otherwise of gone to a more deserving recipent who is sadly restricted to the now demeaned academic merit currency.

We should not - as the current government is doing - increase the two tiered system of education, that allows both the currency of money and the currency of academic merit to purchase the same thing: a degree.

I'd prefer they perhaps raised HECS levels across the board, sought more in the way of corporate sponsorship for universities (FreeHills law and their very generous contribution to the Monash Law Faculty comes to mind as a good example) and abolished fee paying places.

This way we have everyone ONLY getting in by way of academic merit, and then compensating the government and university with a HECS payment after the fact at a later date, so as to help ensure the system that got them to where they are remains in place for others.

I know "Free Education" is unworkable in this day and age and think it was a rather debased system in the first place. But furthermore I detest the abhorrent tiered system of Fee paying places alongside HECS places.

It is allowing rich kids put in less effort to gain greater reward, and unless we wish Australia to have a culture of laziness and ineptitude in our higher class industries and intensive fields of practice, we need to stop it now.

Let's leave the system of aristocracy back in ancient times: where it belongs along with other barbaric ideals.

Education is the one tool that can lift a nation up above it's international peers (and rivals). It can revitalise dead industry, speed along the growth of new industry and prop up powerhouse areas allowing not only the culture but the economy to flourish. Without a competant and committed skills base ANY nation no matter their nature will flounder.

It all begins in the class room. Let's remember that, and ensure only the BEST available students are allowed into our most vital and sought after careers.

*applauds*
Thankyou POT!
You said that better than I could ever have done!

'Capitalism' is just a system whereby two parties trade to the benefit of both. It works very well and is the fastest way to build wealth. Unfortunately it doesn't work properly when Governments, spurred on by left whingers like yourself, decide to intervene and take away people's wealth thus distorting the process.

Erm, I think you'll find that's a perspective of a rich person. Capitalism, throughout history, has only seemed to cause the widening of the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots.
Yeah, it might be the fastest way to wealth - for the person who is not getting ripped off in the first place.
You seem to feel quite happy where you are; what about if, by the luck of the draw, you were in another spot to what you are. Say you were born in the middle of a poor African nation. Say there just wasn't enough food for you to live, and you had no money to buy it. What could you do about it? Would it be your fault? No. You didn't ask to be born in a country with no food or available employment. You would go looking for any help you could get, and just hope with all you had that some kind person who did happen to have enough food and money would spare some for you. Maybe even encourage others to pitch in and help establish some sort of healthy way of life in your foresaken country.

Yeah, I know you're probably sitting there scorning at a "typical left-wing" perspective, but it's a humanist one. It's looking out for other people, because bad life situations are not always the person in question's fault.

What you're basically saying is, I'm born in this well off place, and they're not. I'm happy with the way things are though, so screw them.

Although slightly more of a capitalist than many others on the left-side of the political spectrum (note to others, never EVER say something positive about free market idealogy when in a student union meeting room. ) there is a fundamental flaw that sadly puts a time restriction on what is otherwise one of the greatest methods of wealth accumulation by way of effort and distributive effort and advancement in industry and scientific endevour.

Let's face it, none of the great advancements of last century would of been possible under some socialist utopia or other class of economic thought or process. The dual edged benefit of advancement in civilisation and burgeoning accumulation of "wealth" (be it measured in fiscal or material amount) is a boon to civilisation.

But sadly, capitalism is not a system that caters for sustainable growth. There is no inbuilt stop gap measure that allows the process of growth to sit on a self-perpetuating foundation.

To use the analogy of Dr Thomson, a respect BioMimicry expert, "Capitalism is a great method of constantly finding better ways to pump water from a well. You can upgrade your pump, refine your method, and constantly find more efficent and effective ways of getting that water out of the well. What it sadly lacks, is any way to ensure the well is going to always be there, or always be full. It doesn't account for what we will do with all our fancy pumps and methods when the well simply dries up."

This is the issue that many economists may fall flat when confronted with, and furthermore, why we need reasonable and moderate "leftists" if that is the label we will insist on using, to cater the whims and hunger of the capitalistic right into conduits and processes that will not exhaust our natural capacity for growth in this world and importantly, in areas of humanity that are greatly disadvantaged in the capitalistic arm wrestle of globalised economies.

Free Trade agreements such as that proposed between the US and Australia emphasise this problem. All the focus is on the bottom dollar and the benefits we may derive from such an agreement, no thought is given to the periphery that may otherwise be thought of as irrelevant. In this case it is the defined Australian Culture and spirit, but tommorrow it may be our native bushland, the day after our agricultural industry, the day after that our fisheries. As long as the numbers at the bottom of the rounding sheet are good, who CARES about anything else?

If any common man can just walk into a university and get a degree for free, then doesn't that cheapen education to a very low standard?

Yeah, only people with rich parents should be allowed an education!

It's only an accident of birth that you're where you are now. It's only an accident of birth that the people in third world countries are where they are. You are no better than them for being born in Australia. Don't they deserve the chance to have an education? Security?

There's nothing about you that makes you inherently better than anyone else. You don't deserve what you have any more than someone in Somalia, you just got lucky.

If any common man can just walk into a university and get a degree for free, then doesn't that cheapen education to a very low standard?

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Do you honestly think that any person can just waltz into a uni and get a degree? The argument that student advocates put forward is not that everyone should HAVE a degree, but that everyone should have the CHANCE to get one. If education is free, nobody can pay their way through university, meaning they'll have to actually earn their qualifications. Would you rather have a doctor who simply paid his way through his degree, or one who strived hard and, though being a poor student from a lower-class family, managed to get good marks in all his subjects?

They were surviving better on subsistence agriculture, for crying out loud! If that is your definition, you obviously don?t know what subsistence farming is. Just because something doesn?t earn MONEY doesn?t mean it isn?t successful. They had the resources to survive. That?s a lot more successful than it is now.

Actually if you look at the state of many previous third world countries you will find that average wealth levels have increased after the economy has been liberalised from over-burdensome Government. I can give you stats from any country, courtesy of the CIA world database, so if you wish to bring up any country then just mention it.

I don't think you really understand much about subsistence farming. Think of your life, as it is, with a warm bed, television, shopping, CDs, make-up, etc - all are because of capitalism. If no one wanted to take a risk to make a profit then you wouldn't have any of these things. Now imagine what it would be like without any of these modern comforts. Think about how it would be if you had to work your arse off just to survive. You really think subsistence farming is wonderful? Trying to stop capitalism from occuring in third world countries should be a crime.

The Third World has no other ?back up? if they have a bad harvest (often due to the fact that those crops don?t grow well in Third World climates), as they can no longer subsistence farm (doing it for themselves, isn?t that what you want?!). They need to borrow because otherwise they would die! The initial debt comes from governments colonising and forcing capitalism upon them. People do not change their mode of production in such a dramatic way unless it is forced upon them.

Just stop and think for a second. Why would Government's 'force' capitalism? You can't even force capitalism - capitalism is all about voluntary exchange. The only organisation who uses force to achieve their ends are Governments. Since when was the last time someone put a gun to your head and threatened you with imprisonment if you didn't buy the latest mp3 player?

Governments have to borrow so much because they have bankrupted their citizens by taking away the money they've earned to fund their own private monopolies. And this debt is passed on to the businesses and working people while those who have money and influence are protected through stupid laws. If only capitalism was allowed to flourish in these regions then you wouldn't have the problems of massive poverty and starvation.

Capitalism is a system whereby two parties trade to profit THEMSELVES. That is what capitalism is about! Profit! It works very well in certain countries, it doesn?t work in the Third World! The only wealth that was ever made in the Third World, goes back to the First World. This is linked back to my above point.

What is wrong with making profit? If I build a chair and spend all the money on production and sell it for the exact amount I produced it for, why would I even bother making the chair?

Corporations actually invest a lot in third world countries, creating jobs and building up the economy. It actually makes a lot of sense considering the unused resources and the lack of infrastructure necessary for developing businesses in those countries.

You will have to think a bit more before spouting the usual left-wing rhetoric.

Everyone generally pays insurance, but the point is not whether or not it is compulsory. The analogy was used to show how things are proportionally distributed to make things fair in society. Farmers have to pay tax too, and a very large proportion of that will go into city projects.

Then you are promoting the worst kind of inequality by diverting income from mostly average income earners to a minority group of farmers who are only in the business to make profits anyway. And why should farmers have to pay for city projects if it doesn't effect them?

People who earn a lot more than those who are in serious need are inhumane if they can?t give a t

Before Ender comes in here and crams some knowledge into us all, I suggest you re-check your thinking Nyder.
National Socialism was not a socialist idealogy and had little to do with anything socialist: it was in fact, a far-right idealogy mirroring in many respects the fascist ideal since in Italy and so on.

No, Gatherer, that is not a contradiction. As demonstrated by Hitler (National Socialist) and many other socialist dictators

Yes, it is. Given that socialists are of the left, and fascists are of the right, it is indeed, a contradiction. Unless you can demonstrate similarities between, say, Nazism and the writings of Henry George?